Right on. I’m not saying that anyone has to forgive, but I do believe that every single person has the ability to learn and grow and be better. And don’t we have a vested interest in humans doing that?
"The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, “Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,” or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." - C.S. Lewis
I try to remind myself of this quote whenever someone who has been objectively evil does something good.
I try to remind myself that it's okay to say, "Well, Thank God, even they aren't as bad as that" and still not roll out the red carpet nor ignore the bad things they do and say. It actually comforts me a bit now... assuming she is being genuine, it shows me that there is still something in her that is human, that is kin, something that shares my own humanity. That is encouraging, because there are too many people these days with power that I look at and I see nothing familiar. None of the familiar affectations of humanity. Nothing I could seize upon and say, "Well, thank God for that."
If I suddenly found out that the president had for decades been funding a no-kill animal shelter, that would make me happy. It would not cause me to become an advocate for euthanizing strays.
Point being, you don't have to trust Greene. You don't have to like her. You don't have to invite her to the barbeque... she's probably bring potato salad with raisins ferChristsake... but maybe... maybe there's still a shred of humanity in that angry MAGA heart and maybe if you're a politician who works with her, maybe you can actually work on things you both agree on. That's it.
Good piece. Your take makes me think about the theories on the radicalization of JK Rowling, how she may have received so much acceptance from bad faith actors or TERFists and algorithms at the beginning of her anti-trans journey, and how that felt good, so she kept moving that direction. I’m not sure how we make space for those people to move leftward or to find consensus that doesn’t injure the groups they’ve been busy hurting, but I don’t think shame and purity testing is much help, nor do I think “don’t feed the trolls” has been much help either.
I also appreciate you mentioning that it’s pretty irrelevant whether Greene was a true believer or an opportunist or some combination of both. We have what we have now, we can make space for people to become less assholish either in reality or just to play politics and the net result (less asshole policy!) is good. If we weren’t so obsessed with labeling people good or bad so we didn’t have to use logic regardless of who we were listening to, and just labeled actions and results as good or bad, we’d have an easier time handling politics. I’m not sure we have that option anymore but I hope we can again.
IMHO it comes down to giving credit where it’s due. Don’t have to agree with them on everything just to say “you’re right about this thing and we have your back on it.” It’s also possible where someone is totally garbage about one issue, to at least credit them where they’re right on another. If Rowling said something sensible about abortion rights we shouldn’t say “well she’s also anti-trans so fuck her to death” but rather “look, she’s right about abortion rights”—it doesn’t mean having to concede anything on trans rights, though I think a lot of liberals do think we need an absolutist approach.
We could also do more to work on moderates. If someone agrees with us on trans bathroom rights but not trans girls in sports, instead of writing them off as a bigot maybe take what we agree on (bathrooms) and work from there. People do tend to evolve to agree more with those they already agree on some things, and interact well with. A lot of Bulwark conservatives are saying things about issues you’d never have expected ten years ago.
I think Greene is potentially an authentic right-wing populist -- a political isolationist ("America first!") on foreign policy, immigration, and trade, while supporting certain social programs that benefit working people. It was after all, the well-off Reaganites who convinced rural Americans that they should die from treatable illnesses so that rich people could pay less in taxes. People like Greene genuinely aren't inclined to support the Bush/Cheney style conservatism (interventionalist foreign policy, overly corporate friendly economic policy).
Mainstream Democrats are more likely to seek common cause with the Bush/Cheney Republicans on foreign policy and economic policy. It's easier because they go to the same country clubs and run in the same circles.
You'll recall how Biden took some grief for stating that he'd working with Southern segregationists on legislation early in his Senate career. This is the pre-Reagan period where Southern Republicans did sometimes side with Democrats on economic policy -- of course, they were bigots, but I think Biden's position was ... "I obviously don't agree with them on that point but what can we work on?" Our politics are far more polarized now and liberals in particular are less likely to embrace allies on a single issue unless they can embrace them on everything else.
Which isn’t doing us any favors growing our coalition or at least keeping it from shrinking. We need to think more like proselytizers or marketers and less like paragons of purity.
I agree completely. Rowling is such an interesting case, because just five years ago, she was known as the "anti-Trump liberal writer," now she is not far from being full-blown MAGA (likely endorsing Trump if she lived in the U.S.).
This is a really good, thoughtful piece. I have a lot of trouble getting past how she treated the victims of Parkland, but I also see the value in using her if she can make fractures on the Right bigger. I tell people all the time that the theme song for who you vote for should not be, "Stand By Your Man," it should be, "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" and in this case, if she turns out to be useful for awhile... well...
I don't trust MTG as far as I can throw her, and certainly don't think the Dems should be rolling out the red carpet, but as these things go....the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We'll see if she actually changes. As I suspect she's a toxic narc much like Trump, don't count on it.
Your take on MTG is interesting and pragmatic. I tend to fall in the camp of she probably really did believe all the crap she has spouted until some of it flew back in her face.
As far as forgiveness, that's not for me to ask or care about. The only thing I care about when it comes to MAGA is the trend-line of MAGA people realizing that immigrants, LGBTQs, people of color, and the highly educated are not the ONLY people who are being harmed by Trump's actions. She's the canary who is first feeling the vapors of death in the air. The rest will follow once it impacts them directly.
Unfortunately, the Republican party has successfully formed a coalition of supporters who have empathy only for themselves, their families, and sometimes - but not always - their closest friends.
But no worries to my fellow leftists -- Trump's policies will soon harm everyone except the billionaires and centi-millionaires, and then we'll see a epochal shift in our direction.
I’m reserving full support of Large Marge for now. People CAN have a come to Jesus moment I’m just not sure this is hers. Still getting the support of her, Handy Oakley and Panty checking Mace to release the files has shocked me.
exactly right. There IS no reason to 'take her at her word'. Its simply not a 'requirement'...Its pointless to fret over whether we should or not. just look for the actions that she takes that either supports or defies her 'words'...And that's not even a dis. Its applicable to all political leaders
I think MTG is at this point behaving much like ‘a woman scorned.’ Despite her obsessive loyalty, Donny denied her a role in his cabinet, then humiliated her across social media. It’s been suggested that she may have been sexually assaulted at some time in the past, and that the Epstein victims’ tales triggered an epiphany for her, as they seemingly did for Nancy Mace.
She’s now turning all her nastiness and venom on Donny for his brutal, public rejection of her, because she’s a vindictive POS. If she wants to play it this way, by rubbing his nose in it and playing nice with the Democrats, I say hey, why not. As you point out, Stephen, it’s preferable to have her working against Donny instead of pathetically doing or saying anything to get his attention and a dismissive pat on the head.
I draw a bright line between applauding a supporting vote from MTG on a specific issue on one hand, and on the other hand I conclude that she is a dangerous and vindictive and anti-democratic power monger who can never be trusted.
She doesn't have to be considered anything other than the corrosive figure that she clearly is, and the sooner national politics is rid of her (and her ilk) for good, the better off we will all be.
yep. She will ALWAYS be a liability and a chaos agent. Best to steer clear. You know, sometimes its best to just say nothing Democratic leaders REALLY don't have to weigh in...Although I LOVED what AOC had to say about MTG's sudden change of heart...AOC gets it.
If MTG is anti-Trump in any way, I'm good with it. I support, for example, The Bulwark, though I'd probably disagree with 90 percent of their actual policy positions, due to their anti-Trump, pro-democracy stance. JVL thinks Reagan was the best President in his lifetime. Even not leading to Trump, Reagan destroyed the middle-class and implemented our oligarchy with his supply-side economics, tax cuts for the wealthy, and union-busting. Consequently, except for Trump, Reagan is the worst President of my lifetime. And, given the choice, I'll always vote or support the most progressive candidate. But I welcome any cracks in the Trump monarchy.
I’m perplexed by whatever her angle is—it’s not just Epstein, she also publicly broke with her party on health care funding. I don’t buy the “she’s preparing for a post Trump future” because the post Trump GOP isn’t going to be into health care funding. So who knows what she’s up to.
I do know that right now everything she is saying undermines GOP messaging and reminds everyone how quickly Trump turns on his most loyal allies, so good for her. And liberals should remember that no one is literally trying to recruit her into the party or change our legislative priorities for her, so we can hold off on the “how dare you open our tent which is so big we control none of the government and a minority of states” purity shit. It’s not a good look, not because we hope to convert MAGAs like Greene to liberalism but because there are a lot of people more moderate or on the cusp who we shouldn’t be sending the message “no one new is welcome here, you cannot redeem yourself, wow I’m so proud of my liberal bona fides I wrenched my shoulder patting myself on the back.”
We could just say we agree with the things she says that benefit our side. Republicans happily do this when the shoe is on the other foot. We don’t need to freak out about putting her in charge of the DNC.
The health care funding has to do with her adult children, whose premiums are spiking because they are on Obamacare. Sure, an issue hits loved ones before she gets it, but at least she gets it. Some magas never do get it,
I wonder about even that, though—a lot of right wingers would see their kid lose health care and blame Obama for it—they always find a way! For Greene to conclude that her son’s problem is addressed with liberal policy is quite a leap.
I tend to fall on the JVL side-Greene really does believe some of the absolutely lunatic shit she has spouted over the years ("space lasers") and expected Donald Trump to pull the curtain on it all. When he didn't-when he actively worked against it-it seems she truly felt betrayed. At least she owned up that she played a role in bringing us where we are, but honestly IMO it was secondary to what the cretins at the Lincoln Project did to the discourse and social fabric over three plus decades that led *directly* to Trump and for which they refuse to even acknowledge, much less apologize. Irredeemable? No one is irredeemable (Sunday school taught me that much) but redemption doesn't happen without without sincere repentance for bad acts and some way of atoning for them. MTG seems miles ahead of some of these guys in that respect.
You made me think of another possibility why she’s siding with the Dems. Perhaps she’s the only one who grasps that Dems will one day be back in power and hopes that when they fully investigate the congress members involvement in J6 that this could save her ass. If so she seems to be an outlier at seeing the light hoping for grace I the time comes. Long shot I know. But given that most MAGA cannot see beyond the end of their own noses and think only of themselves Marge thought fully ahead of her political career.
🎶Wa-hoo wa-hoo🎶❄️
Right on. I’m not saying that anyone has to forgive, but I do believe that every single person has the ability to learn and grow and be better. And don’t we have a vested interest in humans doing that?
"The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, “Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,” or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." - C.S. Lewis
I try to remind myself of this quote whenever someone who has been objectively evil does something good.
I try to remind myself that it's okay to say, "Well, Thank God, even they aren't as bad as that" and still not roll out the red carpet nor ignore the bad things they do and say. It actually comforts me a bit now... assuming she is being genuine, it shows me that there is still something in her that is human, that is kin, something that shares my own humanity. That is encouraging, because there are too many people these days with power that I look at and I see nothing familiar. None of the familiar affectations of humanity. Nothing I could seize upon and say, "Well, thank God for that."
If I suddenly found out that the president had for decades been funding a no-kill animal shelter, that would make me happy. It would not cause me to become an advocate for euthanizing strays.
Point being, you don't have to trust Greene. You don't have to like her. You don't have to invite her to the barbeque... she's probably bring potato salad with raisins ferChristsake... but maybe... maybe there's still a shred of humanity in that angry MAGA heart and maybe if you're a politician who works with her, maybe you can actually work on things you both agree on. That's it.
Good piece. Your take makes me think about the theories on the radicalization of JK Rowling, how she may have received so much acceptance from bad faith actors or TERFists and algorithms at the beginning of her anti-trans journey, and how that felt good, so she kept moving that direction. I’m not sure how we make space for those people to move leftward or to find consensus that doesn’t injure the groups they’ve been busy hurting, but I don’t think shame and purity testing is much help, nor do I think “don’t feed the trolls” has been much help either.
I also appreciate you mentioning that it’s pretty irrelevant whether Greene was a true believer or an opportunist or some combination of both. We have what we have now, we can make space for people to become less assholish either in reality or just to play politics and the net result (less asshole policy!) is good. If we weren’t so obsessed with labeling people good or bad so we didn’t have to use logic regardless of who we were listening to, and just labeled actions and results as good or bad, we’d have an easier time handling politics. I’m not sure we have that option anymore but I hope we can again.
IMHO it comes down to giving credit where it’s due. Don’t have to agree with them on everything just to say “you’re right about this thing and we have your back on it.” It’s also possible where someone is totally garbage about one issue, to at least credit them where they’re right on another. If Rowling said something sensible about abortion rights we shouldn’t say “well she’s also anti-trans so fuck her to death” but rather “look, she’s right about abortion rights”—it doesn’t mean having to concede anything on trans rights, though I think a lot of liberals do think we need an absolutist approach.
We could also do more to work on moderates. If someone agrees with us on trans bathroom rights but not trans girls in sports, instead of writing them off as a bigot maybe take what we agree on (bathrooms) and work from there. People do tend to evolve to agree more with those they already agree on some things, and interact well with. A lot of Bulwark conservatives are saying things about issues you’d never have expected ten years ago.
I think Greene is potentially an authentic right-wing populist -- a political isolationist ("America first!") on foreign policy, immigration, and trade, while supporting certain social programs that benefit working people. It was after all, the well-off Reaganites who convinced rural Americans that they should die from treatable illnesses so that rich people could pay less in taxes. People like Greene genuinely aren't inclined to support the Bush/Cheney style conservatism (interventionalist foreign policy, overly corporate friendly economic policy).
Mainstream Democrats are more likely to seek common cause with the Bush/Cheney Republicans on foreign policy and economic policy. It's easier because they go to the same country clubs and run in the same circles.
You'll recall how Biden took some grief for stating that he'd working with Southern segregationists on legislation early in his Senate career. This is the pre-Reagan period where Southern Republicans did sometimes side with Democrats on economic policy -- of course, they were bigots, but I think Biden's position was ... "I obviously don't agree with them on that point but what can we work on?" Our politics are far more polarized now and liberals in particular are less likely to embrace allies on a single issue unless they can embrace them on everything else.
Which isn’t doing us any favors growing our coalition or at least keeping it from shrinking. We need to think more like proselytizers or marketers and less like paragons of purity.
I agree completely. Rowling is such an interesting case, because just five years ago, she was known as the "anti-Trump liberal writer," now she is not far from being full-blown MAGA (likely endorsing Trump if she lived in the U.S.).
This is a really good, thoughtful piece. I have a lot of trouble getting past how she treated the victims of Parkland, but I also see the value in using her if she can make fractures on the Right bigger. I tell people all the time that the theme song for who you vote for should not be, "Stand By Your Man," it should be, "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" and in this case, if she turns out to be useful for awhile... well...
I don't trust MTG as far as I can throw her, and certainly don't think the Dems should be rolling out the red carpet, but as these things go....the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We'll see if she actually changes. As I suspect she's a toxic narc much like Trump, don't count on it.
Yep! But far be it from me to disarm this circular firing squad.
oh no, they can all take each other down! I'll bring the popcorn.
Your take on MTG is interesting and pragmatic. I tend to fall in the camp of she probably really did believe all the crap she has spouted until some of it flew back in her face.
As far as forgiveness, that's not for me to ask or care about. The only thing I care about when it comes to MAGA is the trend-line of MAGA people realizing that immigrants, LGBTQs, people of color, and the highly educated are not the ONLY people who are being harmed by Trump's actions. She's the canary who is first feeling the vapors of death in the air. The rest will follow once it impacts them directly.
Unfortunately, the Republican party has successfully formed a coalition of supporters who have empathy only for themselves, their families, and sometimes - but not always - their closest friends.
But no worries to my fellow leftists -- Trump's policies will soon harm everyone except the billionaires and centi-millionaires, and then we'll see a epochal shift in our direction.
I’m reserving full support of Large Marge for now. People CAN have a come to Jesus moment I’m just not sure this is hers. Still getting the support of her, Handy Oakley and Panty checking Mace to release the files has shocked me.
I don’t mind sitting back and watching them eat each other, but I won’t be inviting her over for dinner. Ever. Also, please, please call her Piggy
Nope, not calling her, or any woman Piggy, no matter their beliefs or what they look like.
Well, I want to see what she does, not what she says. 'cause I've seen this movie before. Very good points in this article.
Same here.
Bingo! She's saying a lot of reasonable stuff right now, and I hope that translates into reasonable actions.
exactly right. There IS no reason to 'take her at her word'. Its simply not a 'requirement'...Its pointless to fret over whether we should or not. just look for the actions that she takes that either supports or defies her 'words'...And that's not even a dis. Its applicable to all political leaders
I think MTG is at this point behaving much like ‘a woman scorned.’ Despite her obsessive loyalty, Donny denied her a role in his cabinet, then humiliated her across social media. It’s been suggested that she may have been sexually assaulted at some time in the past, and that the Epstein victims’ tales triggered an epiphany for her, as they seemingly did for Nancy Mace.
She’s now turning all her nastiness and venom on Donny for his brutal, public rejection of her, because she’s a vindictive POS. If she wants to play it this way, by rubbing his nose in it and playing nice with the Democrats, I say hey, why not. As you point out, Stephen, it’s preferable to have her working against Donny instead of pathetically doing or saying anything to get his attention and a dismissive pat on the head.
I draw a bright line between applauding a supporting vote from MTG on a specific issue on one hand, and on the other hand I conclude that she is a dangerous and vindictive and anti-democratic power monger who can never be trusted.
She doesn't have to be considered anything other than the corrosive figure that she clearly is, and the sooner national politics is rid of her (and her ilk) for good, the better off we will all be.
yep. She will ALWAYS be a liability and a chaos agent. Best to steer clear. You know, sometimes its best to just say nothing Democratic leaders REALLY don't have to weigh in...Although I LOVED what AOC had to say about MTG's sudden change of heart...AOC gets it.
If MTG is anti-Trump in any way, I'm good with it. I support, for example, The Bulwark, though I'd probably disagree with 90 percent of their actual policy positions, due to their anti-Trump, pro-democracy stance. JVL thinks Reagan was the best President in his lifetime. Even not leading to Trump, Reagan destroyed the middle-class and implemented our oligarchy with his supply-side economics, tax cuts for the wealthy, and union-busting. Consequently, except for Trump, Reagan is the worst President of my lifetime. And, given the choice, I'll always vote or support the most progressive candidate. But I welcome any cracks in the Trump monarchy.
As always, Empty G will do whatever is best for Empty G. She's a pathological opportunist.
I’m perplexed by whatever her angle is—it’s not just Epstein, she also publicly broke with her party on health care funding. I don’t buy the “she’s preparing for a post Trump future” because the post Trump GOP isn’t going to be into health care funding. So who knows what she’s up to.
I do know that right now everything she is saying undermines GOP messaging and reminds everyone how quickly Trump turns on his most loyal allies, so good for her. And liberals should remember that no one is literally trying to recruit her into the party or change our legislative priorities for her, so we can hold off on the “how dare you open our tent which is so big we control none of the government and a minority of states” purity shit. It’s not a good look, not because we hope to convert MAGAs like Greene to liberalism but because there are a lot of people more moderate or on the cusp who we shouldn’t be sending the message “no one new is welcome here, you cannot redeem yourself, wow I’m so proud of my liberal bona fides I wrenched my shoulder patting myself on the back.”
We could just say we agree with the things she says that benefit our side. Republicans happily do this when the shoe is on the other foot. We don’t need to freak out about putting her in charge of the DNC.
The health care funding has to do with her adult children, whose premiums are spiking because they are on Obamacare. Sure, an issue hits loved ones before she gets it, but at least she gets it. Some magas never do get it,
I wonder about even that, though—a lot of right wingers would see their kid lose health care and blame Obama for it—they always find a way! For Greene to conclude that her son’s problem is addressed with liberal policy is quite a leap.
I tend to fall on the JVL side-Greene really does believe some of the absolutely lunatic shit she has spouted over the years ("space lasers") and expected Donald Trump to pull the curtain on it all. When he didn't-when he actively worked against it-it seems she truly felt betrayed. At least she owned up that she played a role in bringing us where we are, but honestly IMO it was secondary to what the cretins at the Lincoln Project did to the discourse and social fabric over three plus decades that led *directly* to Trump and for which they refuse to even acknowledge, much less apologize. Irredeemable? No one is irredeemable (Sunday school taught me that much) but redemption doesn't happen without without sincere repentance for bad acts and some way of atoning for them. MTG seems miles ahead of some of these guys in that respect.
You made me think of another possibility why she’s siding with the Dems. Perhaps she’s the only one who grasps that Dems will one day be back in power and hopes that when they fully investigate the congress members involvement in J6 that this could save her ass. If so she seems to be an outlier at seeing the light hoping for grace I the time comes. Long shot I know. But given that most MAGA cannot see beyond the end of their own noses and think only of themselves Marge thought fully ahead of her political career.